1) INCONSISTENT RULINGS

(a) Rav Ukva’s children had an ox; the slaughter started in the Turbatz Veshet, and finished in the Veshet proper.
1. Rava: I will apply the stringencies of Rav and Shmuel to rule that it is Tereifah.
i. The stringency of Rav – that a cut of any size in the Turbatz Veshet makes it a Tereifah.
ii. Question: But Rav holds that Turbatz Veshet is also a valid place for slaughter!
iii. Answer: Regarding this, Rava rules like Shmuel, that it is not.
iv. Question: But Shmuel holds that only cutting the majority of Turbatz Veshet makes it a Tereifah!
v. Answer: Regarding this, Rava rules like Rav.
(b) R. Aba: Both Rav and Shmuel agree that the slaughter was valid – Rava ruled incorrectly, he must pay the owners for the loss he caused them.
(c) Mar brei d’Ravina: A Beraisa refutes Rava!
1. (Beraisa): The Halachah always follows Beis Hillel. One may choose to hold like Beis Shamai, or like Beis Hillel;
2. If one holds like the leniencies of both, he is wicked;
3. If one holds like the stringencies of both (when they are inconsistent) – he is a fool walking in darkness.
i. Rather, one must consistently hold like Beis Shamai, or like Beis Hillel.
(d) Question: The Beraisa contradicts itself!
1. First it says that the Halachah always follows Beis Hillel; then it says that one may choose to hold like Beis Shamai!
(e) Answer #1: Before the Bas Kol (voice from Heaven) announced that the Halachah follows Beis Hillel, one could choose to hold like Beis Shamai; after the Bas Kol, the Halachah follows Beis Hillel.
(f) Answer #2: The entire Mishnah is after the Bas Kol.
1. The first Tana says that we heed the Bas Kol; the second Tana is R. Yehoshua, who says that we do not heed a Bas Kol.
(g) Question: Why did Rava rule according to stringencies that are inconsistent with each other?
(h) Answer (Rav Tavos): Rava ruled entirely like Rav.
1. (Rami bar Yechezkel): What was taught in the name of Rav (43B) is according to Rav Yehudah, but Rav did not really say that!
i. Really, Rav holds that Chachamim specified which parts of the Veshet are valid for slaughter (implying that the ends, including Turbatz Veshet, are invalid);
ii. Nevertheless, Rav holds that if Turbatz Veshet is cut at all, it is Tereifah.
2) “TURBATZ VESHET”
(a) Question: How much of the top end of the Veshet is invalid for slaughter?
(b) Answer (Rav Nachman): The amount that can be held in one’s hand (Rashi – the width of three or four fingers; Tosfos – two fingers).
(c) Question: How much of the bottom end of the Veshet is invalid for slaughter?
(d) Answer (Rav Nachman): Until the part which has hair on it is invalid.
(e) Question: But Rav taught, the last Tefach of the Veshet closest to the Keres is the inner Keres; (the entire Veshet has no hair, so it is fitting for slaughter) – how can slaughter be done on the inner Keres?!
(f) Answer #1: Rather, the Tefach of the Keres closest to the Veshet is the inner Keres.
(g) Answer #2: Rav referred to an ox, which has hair on the end of the Veshet.
(h) (Shmuel): If the entire Turbatz Veshet was removed from the jaw, the animal is Kosher.
1. Support (Mishnah): If the lower jaw was removed, it is Kosher.
(i) Question (against Shmuel – Rav Papa): But Ikur (if the Simanim are uprooted) disqualifies slaughter!
1. Counter-question: How does Rav Papa understand the Mishnah?
2. Answer: If the Siman is uprooted from the jaw and from the flesh, this disqualifies slaughter; the Mishnah discusses when the jaw was uprooted, but the Simanim are in their place in the flesh.
(j) Answer: Shmuel only meant that *most* of the Turbatz Veshet was removed
(k) Question: But Shmuel taught, if most of the Simanim are dangling, it is Tereifah!
(l) Answer: That is when they were yanked forcefully; if they were gently pulled and are still partially attached, it is Kosher.
3) A CUT “KANEH”
(a) (Mishnah): If the Kaneh was cut (it is Tereifah).
(b) (Beraisa): The majority must be cut.
1. Question: The majority of what (must be cut)?
2. Version #1 – Answer (Rav): The majority of the width of the (entire) Kaneh (the walls of the Kaneh are part of the calculation).
44b—————————————44b

3. Version #2 – Answer (Rav): The majority of the interior of the Kaneh.
(c) A case of a cut Kaneh was brought before Rav; he was checking if the majority of the width of the Kaneh was cut.
(d) Question (Rav Kahana and Rav Asi): But you taught, only if the majority of the interior was cut!
1. They sent it to Rabah bar bar Chanah to check; he checked for the majority of the interior, and ruled that it was Kosher; he himself bought some of the meat.
(e) Question: How could he permit what Rav forbade?
1. (Beraisa): A Chacham may not Metaher or permit the same article that another Chacham was Metamei or forbade (Tosfos – based on his own reasoning, but he may do so if his Rebbi taught him otherwise).
(f) Answer: Rav never ruled that it was Tereifah.
4) CONDUCT EXPECTED OF CHACHAMIM
(a) Question: Since a Chacham had to permit it, how could Rabah bar bar Chanah eat from it?
1. Yechezkel said about himself – “I did not make my soul Tamei, I never ate Neveilah or Tereifah, Pigul (abominable) meat did not enter my mouth.”
2. “I did not make my soul Tamei” – I did not have emissions at night because of thinking about women by day;
3. “I never ate Neveilah or Tereifah” – I did not eat from an animal which was hurriedly slaughtered before it dies;
4. “Abominable meat did not enter my mouth” – I did not eat from an animal which needed a Chacham to rule that it was Kosher;
5. R. Noson says, I did not eat from an animal before the gifts to the Kohen were separated.
(b) Answer: A Chacham need refrain only from an animal permitted through reasoning; Rabah bar bar Chanah had a tradition that the majority of the interior must be cut to make it Tereifah. (Tosfos – this is a second answer to Question 3:e.)
(c) Question: He should not have eaten, because of suspicion!
1. (Beraisa): If a judge ruled or witnesses testified about something, they are not forbidden to buy it later;
2. Still, Chachamim say, one should distance oneself from anything that may lead to suspicion (that they are receiving a discount to reward them for the ruling or testimony).
(d) Answer: That only applies to things sold by estimation; Rabah bar bar Chanah bought meat by weight (and all saw that he paid the usual price).
1. Rava permitted an animal and bought some of the meat.
2. His wife: My father (Rav Chisda) would never buy a Bechor (firstborn animal) which he permitted (to be slaughtered on account of a blemish)!
3. Rava: A blemished Bechor must be sold by estimation, without weighing – had he bought, people could suspect that he got a discount;
i. I bought meat by weight, all saw that I paid the full price.
ii. Suggestion: Perhaps people will think that I got a nicer piece on account of my ruling!
iii. Rejection: They always give me a nice piece!
(e) (Rav Chisda): A Chacham (to whom we return a lost object if he says he recognizes it, without giving a sign) is one who rules that his own animal is Tereifah (when he cannot resolve a doubt);
1. He fulfills “One who hates gifts will live.”
(f) (Mar Zutra): If one learns written Torah, Mishnah, the reasons and resolutions of the Mishnayos, and rules that his own animal is Tereifah, he epitomizes “You will eat the work of your hands; happy are you, it will be good for you.”
1. (Rav Zvid): He inherits both worlds – “Happy are you” – in this world; “It will be good for you” – in the world to come.
(g) R. Elazar would not accept gifts from the Nasi’s house, and he would decline invitations to eat there – “One who hates gifts will live”.
(h) R. Zeira would not accept gifts from the Nasi’s house, but he would eat there when invited – he reasoned, they are honored by his coming.