וְחַזְיָיהּ לִדְרַב מַתָּנָא דְּאָתְיָא בְּ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּדָמְיָא לִנְטוּלֵי; תְּנָא: ״אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת״ – הָנֵי הוּא דִּטְרֵפָה, הָא דְּרַב מַתָּנָא כְּשֵׁרָה.

and the tanna then saw that the case of Rav Mattana, where the end of the thigh is dislocated, ostensibly comes under the heading of: This is the principle, and one might assume that it renders the animal a tereifa as well. What is the reason for this? It is because a dislocated thigh is similar to the cases of removed organs that render the animal a tereifa . Therefore, he taught the phrase: These are tereifot , at the beginning of the mishna, to emphasize that it is only these that render an animal a tereifa , but in the case of Rav Mattana, the animal is kosher.

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: ״אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת״ דַּוְקָא; תְּנָא טְרֵפוֹת, וּתְנָא ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״, וְחַזְיָיהּ לִדְרַב מַתָּנָא דְּלָא אָתְיָא בְּ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״, מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו לִנְקוּבֵי דָּמְיָא, וְלָא לִפְסוּקֵי דָּמְיָא, וְלִנְטוּלֵי נַמִי לָא דָּמְיָא; תְּנָא: ״אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת״ – הָנֵי הוּא דִּכְשֵׁרוֹת, הָא דְּרַב מַתָּנָא טְרֵפָה.

And according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says that the phrase: These are kosher, is meant specifically, the tanna taught the list of tereifot , and taught afterward that this is the principle. And the tanna then saw that the case of Rav Mattana ostensibly does not come under the heading of: This is the principle, and one might assume that it does not render the animal a tereifa . What is the reason for this? It is because a dislocated thigh is not similar to cases of perforated organs, and it is not similar to cases of cut organs, such as the windpipe, and it is not similar to cases of removed organs. Therefore, he taught the phrase: These are kosher, to emphasize that it is only these that are kosher, but in the case of Rav Mattana, the animal is a tereifa .

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב מַתָּנָא: הַאי בּוּקָא דְּאַטְמָא דְּשַׁף מִדּוּכְתֵּיהּ – טְרֵפָה. וְרָבָא אֲמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאִי אִיפְסִיק נִיבֵיהּ – טְרֵפָה. וְהִלְכְתָא: אִיפְסִיק – נַמִי כְּשֵׁרָה, עַד דְּמִתְעַכְּלָא אִתְעַכּוּלֵי.

The Gemara addresses the matter itself: Rav Mattana says: This head of the femur that was completely dislocated renders the animal a tereifa . And Rava said: The animal is kosher, but if its sinew holding the bone in place is cut, it is a tereifa . The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: Even if the sinew is cut, the animal is still kosher, unless the sinew decomposed, in which case the animal is a tereifa .

״עַד כַּמָּה תֶּחְסַר״. אֲמַר זְעֵירִי: אַתּוּן דְּלָא מִיתְחֲמֵי לְכוֹן שִׁיעוּרָא – שִׁיעוּרֵיהּ בְּדִינָרָא קוּרְדִּינָאָה, וְהָוֵי כִּפְשִׁיטָא זוּטַרְתִּי, וּמִשְׁתַּכְּחָא בֵּינֵי פְּשִׁיטֵי דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא.

§ The mishna states: How much can the windpipe be missing and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the perforation is the same size as an Italian issar . Ze’eiri, who came from Eretz Yisrael, said with regard to this: You, who are not familiar with the measure of an Italian issar , because it is not used in Babylonia, should estimate its measure as a Kurdish dinar. And it is like a small peruta coin and can be found among the perutot of Pumbedita.

אֲמַר רַבִּי חָנָא פְּתוֹרָאָה: עֵילָא מִינַּאי הֲוָה קָאֵי בַּר נַפָּחָא, וּבְעָא מִינִּי דִּינָרָא קוּרְדִּינָאָה לְשַׁעֲרֵי בֵּיהּ טְרֵיפְתָא, וּבְעַי לְמֵיקַם מִקַּמֵּיהּ וְלָא שְׁבַקְנִי, אֲמַר לִי: שֵׁב בְּנִי, שֵׁב! אֵין בַּעֲלֵי אוּמָּנִיּוֹת רַשָּׁאִין לַעֲמוֹד מִפְּנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעֲסוּקִין בִּמְלַאכְתָּם.

Rabbi Ḥana the money changer said: Bar Nappaḥa, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, was standing over me, and he requested of me a Kurdish dinar with which to measure tereifot , in accordance with the statement of Ze’eiri. And I wanted to rise before him out of respect, but he did not let me. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to me: Sit, my son, sit. Tradesmen are not permitted to stand before Torah scholars when they are engaged in their work.

וְלָא? וְהָתְנַן: כָּל בַּעֲלֵי אוּמָּנִיּוֹת עוֹמְדִים מִפְּנֵיהֶם, וְשׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹמָן, וְאוֹמְרִין לָהֶם: אֲחֵינוּ אַנְשֵׁי מָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, בּוֹאֲכֶם בְּשָׁלוֹם!

The Gemara asks: And are tradesmen not permitted to stand before Torah scholars? But didn’t we learn in a mishna ( Bikkurim 3:3): When the pilgrims bring their first fruits to Jerusalem, all the tradesmen stand before them, and greet them, and say to them: Our brothers from such and such place, welcome?

אֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִפְּנֵיהֶם – עוֹמְדִין, מִפְּנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים – אֵין עוֹמְדִין. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה חֲבִיבָה מִצְוָה בְּשַׁעְתָּהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי מִפְּנֵיהֶם עוֹמְדִין, מִפְּנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים אֵין עוֹמְדִין.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Yes, they stand before those bringing first fruits, but they do not stand before Torah scholars. Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says: Come and see how beloved is a mitzva performed in its proper time, as the tradesmen stand before those who brought first fruits, while they do not stand before Torah scholars.

מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא: כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא נִמְצָא מַכְשִׁילָן לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא!

The Gemara rejects the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Avin: From where does one know that they rise out of respect? Perhaps the tradesmen stand only in order not to cause those bringing first fruits to fail and sin in the future. That is, if the tradesmen do not treat those bringing the first fruits with great respect, they may not make the effort to travel to Jerusalem in a subsequent year.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כְּסֶלַע – כְּיָתֵר מִכְּסֶלַע, כְּאִיסָּר – כְּיָתֵר מִכְּאִיסָּר.

§ The mishna states: How much can the windpipe be missing and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the perforation is the same size as an Italian issar . With regard to this, Rav Naḥman says: Whenever the Sages specify the measure as that of a sela , e.g., with regard to a damaged skull for purposes of tereifot , they mean that even an area exactly the size of a sela is treated as more than a sela . Likewise, when they specify the measure as that of an issar , they mean that an area exactly the size of an issar is treated as though it were more than an issar .

אַלְמָא קָסָבַר רַב נַחְמָן: ״עַד״ – וְלֹא עַד בִּכְלָל.

Since Rav Naḥman holds that a perforation exactly the size of an issar is treated as though it were larger than an issar , he must hold that such a perforation in the windpipe renders the animal a tereifa . The Gemara therefore infers: Apparently, Rav Naḥman holds that whenever the Sages use the word: Until, it means until and not including the measure, as the mishna states that an animal with a perforated windpipe is kosher until the perforation reaches the size of an issar .

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: חֶבֶל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַמִּטָּה – עַד חֲמִשָּׁה טְפָחִים טָהוֹר, מַאי לָאו חֲמִשָּׁה כִּלְמַטָּה? לָא חֲמִשָּׁה כִּלְמַעְלָה.

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a mishna ( Kelim 19:2): The end of a rope that extends from a rope bed is not susceptible to ritual impurity until it is five handbreadths long. If the bed becomes impure, the rope remains pure, because it has no use and is therefore not considered part of the bed. What, is it not teaching that a rope exactly five handbreadths long is treated as though its length were below that amount? If so, the word: Until, means until and including the exact measure. The Gemara responds: No, a rope exactly five handbreadths long is like a rope whose length is above that amount.

תָּא שְׁמַע: מֵחֲמִשָּׁה וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה – טָמֵא; מַאי לָאו עֲשָׂרָה כִּלְמַטָּה? לָא, עֲשָׂרָה כִּלְמַעְלָה.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of the mishna: If the end of the rope was of any length from five handbreadths until ten, it is susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that a rope exactly ten handbreadths long is treated as though its length were below that? The Gemara responds: No, a rope exactly ten handbreadths long is treated like a rope whose length is above that, and it is not susceptible to impurity.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַדַּקִּין שֶׁבִּכְלֵי חֶרֶס, הֵן וְקַרְקְרוֹתֵיהֶן וְדוֹפְנוֹתֵיהֶם יוֹשְׁבִין שֶׁלֹּא מְסוּמָּכִין

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from another mishna ( Kelim 2:2): With regard to the smallest of earthenware vessels, if they, or even their broken-off bases or sides, can sit, i.e., remain upright, without being supported,