• Two holes which are not aligned in the קורקבן or וושט

Rebbe Yochanan said: ניקב הקורקבן וכיס שלו קיים – if the outer muscle of a bird’s gizzard was punctured, but the inner pouch is intact, it is not a טריפה. Rav Nachman said the reverse is also true, and it is only a טריפה if both are punctured. Regarding the וושט – esophagus, Rabbah said that it has two layers; the outer layer is red and the inner layer is white. If only one layer is punctured, it is not a טריפה. The Gemara asks: ניקבו שניהם זה שלא כנגד זה מהו – if both layers were punctured, but the holes are not aligned with each other, what is the halachah? Rav Pappa was quoted as saying that regarding a וושט, it is כשר, but regarding a קורקבן, it is a טריפה. Rav Ashi objected that the opposite is logical: וושט דאכלה ביה ופעיא ביה – the esophagus, with which [the animal] eats and cries out, constantly expands and contracts, so זמנין דמיהנדזין בהדי הדדי – sometimes [the holes] will line up with each other, and it should be a טריפה. In contrast, קורקבן דמינח נייח כדקאי קאי – the gizzard, which stays at rest, will remain as is, and the holes will not become aligned, so it should be kosher. Some quoted Rav Pappa ruling this way.

• ישב לו קוץ בוושט

Ulla said: ישב לו קוץ בוושט – if a thorn became stuck in the animal’s esophagus, אין חוששין שמא הבריא – we are not concerned that perhaps it was punctured by the thorn and then healed. Since we do not see any puncture marks on the וושט’s outer layer, we are not concerned that the outer layer was punctured and a scab formed over that hole, which would be a טריפה (because Rabbah said earlier that a scab which forms on a wound of the וושט is ineffective). One of the Rabbis seated before Rav Kahana quoted Ulla’s statement as "נמצאת" – [a thorn] was found in the וושט, without being lodged in, אבל ישב חיישינן – but if it was actually lodged in the וושט, we are concerned that it punctured the outer layer and is a טריפה. Rav Kahana told his talmidim: לא תציתו ליה – Do not listen to him! Ulla’s ruling was about "ישב" – where it was lodged, but if a thorn was merely found in the וושט, it was not necessary for Ulla to permit it, דכולהו חיוי ברייתא קוצי אכלן – because all the animals of [the meadows and forests] eat thorns, and are not harmed by them.

• The status of the תורבץ הוושט re: holes and shechitah

Regarding the תורבץ הוושט – wide part of the esophagus, Rav said: במשהו – even a minimal hole in it makes the animal a טריפה, but Shmuel said: ברובו – with its majority, i.e., if most of its circumference is cut. The Gemara explains that Rav considers the תורבץ to be a valid place for shechting the וושט, so a minimal hole renders the animal טריפה like the rest of the וושט, whereas Shmuel holds the תורבץ is beyond the area for shechitah. Three opinions are given as to the תורבץ’s location: (1) כל שחותכו ומרחיב – wherever one cuts [the וושט] and [the severed pipe] widens because of its stiffness is the תורבץ, but below that, which remains in place when cut (because it is softer), is the וושט itself. (2) Alternatively, this latter area is the תורבץ, and the place below that, which contracts when cut (because it is even softer), is the וושט. (3) Alternatively, it is מבלעתא – [where the animal] swallows. Rava ruled that a shechitah which began in the תורבץ and ended in the וושט was invalid, paskening like Rav that even a minimal hole in the תורבץ makes a טריפה, and like Shmuel that the תורבץ is outside the shechitah area. These factors appear incompatible, and the next Daf will conclude that Rav agrees the תורבץ is not a valid place for shechitah.